From the OS: Gator drags child into Seven Seas Lagoon

[21stamps]

Apparently that's what many people believe they are paying for when they goto Disney

Yeah, I never realized that until this thread.

 

[fosse76]

1) worth pursuing does not change who is liable, so your points about costs is irrelevant.
2) Disney paying for stitches would not be because of liability - they'd probably do it out of customer recovery or potentially just to keep things simple and make the entire topic go away. I'd challenge you to cite any premise for Disney being liable for injuries caused by a wild bird while on Disney property. Just because they might do it, again, does not change who is liable
3) Having insurance does not change anything, in fact if there were basis for Disney to be liable, the insurance company would have the right to pursue disney to recover their costs. So again, changing nothing when it comes to establishing liability

So I challenge you again, under what premise would Disney be liable for a deer hitting my car while on WDW private property?

Let me be a little more clear, since I am not always that attentive with my posts when I am at work. Generally, attacks by wild animals not in captivity are governed by the common law rule of animals ferae naturae (i.e., wild-natured). This concept DOES PREVENT property owners from being held liable for animal attacks that occur on their land. HOWEVER, it DOES NOT protect property owners from liability if they were negligent in preventing injuries. There are four elements that must be proved: duty of care, breach of that duty, causation, and damages.

It happened in an open, uncontrolled area of the property fully exposed to open water, wetlands, and nature preserves. This wasn't the lobby lawn.

It is "uncontrolled" by Disney's design. It was left open by Disney's design. It was left "un-monitored" by Disney's design. This was not some isolated location on Disney property, this was a man-made beach in front of a resort hotel. Disney had an absolute duty of care. By not warning guests of potential hazards, they breached that duty. Their failure to exercise any supervision of the area, or to provide any barriers for known-dangerous animals or prevention of guests from entering a restricted area caused a guest to be attacked by a wild animal. And there were damages. This incident meets all four elements. You want to defend Disney all day long because you think they are innocent, and I'm telling you that you are wrong.

Two, simply being the owner is not grounds alone for liability. If are standing outside the Polynesian, and a tree fell on you, Disney is not liable by default. You'd have to prove negligence that caused or contributed to the accident happening.. like knowing the tree was unsafe, mismanaged, etc.

Your premise of 'it happened at Disney, so Disney is liable' without anything else bounding it is complete BS. I can cite examples all day long disproving it.

When someone enters your property, they have a reasonable expectation of not getting injured. Under "premises liability", the property owner is responsible for maintaining a safe environment. This absolutely applies to Disney.

Of course, liability is determined by the laws of the individual states, so there will be differences in the liability for each state . But they all adopt the "premises liability" premise. Nature or not, there can be liability.

No, mr non-esquire... I said 'are by default...' - connect the correct words together.

I'm a Federal prosecutor, but nice try.

But that is not an unbounded concept. They are not liable for ANYTHING that happens, there are exclusions and standards where the owner can prove they did proper diligence and are absolved of liability of an outcome or simply aren't responsible at all (ex: Forces of Nature). Simply having an accident is not enough...

Wrong again. There is no such thing as "Forces of Nature" as a defense against liability. You are confusing that with "Acts of God", and that is very specifically defined in the law as acts outside human control (i.e., natural disasters). And while yes, you can argue that wild animals are outside human control, that's not entirely true. We can to an extent protect against wild animals. So that would not apply.

And Disney could demonstrate how they do manage those risks to reasonable standards and other actions they do take to establish a level of safety to address that topic, to the point where patrons share some level of responsibility for their involvement as well.

But I can demonstrate they don't. And I already have. This occurred at a Disney-sponsored event. Why were no CMs enforcing a policy that prohibits guests from entering the water. Were the signs visible to these particular guests? Since this was at night, were the signs illuminated? How close were the signs to the water. Knowing alligators commonly appear, what has Disney done to prevent them from entering the public spaces where people congregate. This isn't a public beach. It's a man-made beach on a man-made lake in total control of Disney. What if the boy in question hadn't actually been in the water? He still could have easily been snatched by the alligator. Disney absolutely has liability here, Whether you like it or not.

Yes this was a horrible accident, and yes the parents also have a duty of care. But we don't know what they knew about alligators on Disney property, or about not being allowed in the water. But Disney DID know, and they failed to communicate that information to their guests.

If Disney builds a pool to the agreed upon safety standards, and a kid ignores the lifeguard's warnings, signs/markings and dives into the shallow end of the pool and is paralyzed. Disney isn't going to be found liable - even tho it was their pool. Your premise of 'their property, their liability' as the only test is invalid. There is more to that discussion.

Wrong again. Swimming pools are almost always addressed separately for liability, because they can be pretty hazardous under normal conditions. You are correct as far as adults are concerned, in that liability for misconduct that can cause an injury will generally not be assigned to the pool owner. Usually a basic standard duty of care is all that is required, and the legal status pf the pool user also can come into play (i.e., is he trespassing). However, when it comes to children, pool owners have a heightened duty of care (regardless as to whether or not the child is trespassing). So in your example Disney would most likely be found liable to some extent as a matter of law.

Also, I want to point out that there is a concept in law also known as Strict liability. Under strict liability it wouldn't matter who caused the accident, the property owner will always be responsible. That's usually because strict liability is associated with inherently dangerous activities. In this case, depending on what Disney knows about the alligators on property and what they do as a matter of policy, they could be held to strict liability. In other words, does Disney allow the alligators to roam free in certain guest areas (such as the beach) without intervening and re-locating them? If so, they know they are playing with fire and that an attack is probable. That would mean they are engaging in a dangerous activity, which makes them liable, no matter what actually caused the attack. (Just to be clear, I am not stating that as fact, I am citing an example as to how Disney could be strictly liable).

 

[SayCheers!]

I don't know those parents' minds - if the thought of alligators even entered in. I do know the "bubble effect" is real, and it almost certainly plays into many parenting choices that would seem ridiculous in any other setting. The carefully curated environment that creates "the bubble" creates a false-sense of security and can make respecting nature seem like an oxymoron. I've seen many alligators on the SSL myself and pictures of some healthy-sized gators checking out the Poly beach. Still, it's not my first thought when I hit the Poly beach to watch the fireworks at night.

Disney has a vested interest in keeping families safe, and they benefit from their stellar safety record. Does that record and the environment they create then obligate them to go beyond expecting guests to use the same level of common sense they might have when taking an eco-tour of the Everglades? By not posting signs about alligators, or having any type of publicized wild-life management policy, is Disney allowing guests to assume the same level of safety precautions found in the parks and resorts would also translate into the water abutting their resort?

Also, is there some type of wildlife management policy in place? It seems like some of the things I've read have suggested there is.

 

[fosse76]

Disney won't even enforce their existing rules *IN* the parks.. I find it hard to think they'll play hardball with anyone.

Don't I know it! It's just baffling, And Disneyland is way worse. People gcould go around spray painting everything in sight and they'll simply ignore it. They'll just give people who complain a free FastPass.

 

[WDW862]

I work on a large college campus in South Florida that has a large body of water on the premises. Large enough that there are Alligator warning signs posted around it. Sure, people should know, but having a sign just makes it that much clearer.

The Orlando/Central Florida area has signs warning you about Alligators all over the place. I'm surprised that Disney doesn't have any.

 

[GhostHost1000]

more signs are coming... beach may reopen soon (still TBD)

 

[G00fyDad]

Gator warning signs on the way.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/busi...ator-attack-signs-warning-20160616-story.html

Okay, I may have a degree in Criminal Justice, but maybe someone with a firmer grasp on litigation can answer this question. Wouldn't putting up signs now seem more like it was always Disney's fault (though I see NO fault here on ANYONE) all along? It seems to be the same as a store telling its staff to not say "Sorry" when someone falls or gets hurt inside the store. That is the same as admitting fault when you say that. Attorneys can use that in a civil case to show that the store was sorry that they had not done enough to prevent the accident.

(Please don't get all bent sideways on me everyone. I am asking a serious question because I just don't know enough about it to answer it for myself.)

 

[21stamps]

I am not saying that I am infallible as a parent. I have my own issues as a parent that could be addressed. What I am saying is that when we left the house I do not allow my children out of my sight for even a moment (unless they are inside an enclosed slide going down it of course.) Seriously. Not once. This is not me being superior at all. I have been fanatical about it to the irritation of other parent friends that were out with us on occasion. I would not socialize with them and I would be watching my child. Not eagle-eyeing them, but just keep my eyes fixed on them at all times. This was primarily because I was more worried that they were going to be kidnapped or be "that annoying kid" to others. Not because I felt that they were going to fall into a gorilla pit or get taken by an alligator. And despite what it has looked like I do not condemn other parents for not handling their children the way I do. I get irritated when someone gets all over me for being the way I am or when they are not watching their kids and the children are running around doing God knows what while the parent is clueless. I have my faults, but watching my kids (or grandchild) is not one of them.

That's great, BUT- if you truly stop and think- think of paying for your food at the zoo, maybe you had to let go of a hand to get your money out.
Think of when you were at the grocery store removing an item from the shelf.
Think about when you were selecting your 'grade' at the gas pump.

Not one person alive can say they have never ever taken their eyes off of their child. Not a single one.

Regardless, this is irrelevant in this situation. It is not even close to what happened.

 

[TLtron]

2.) It means having Guests at EVERY resort sign docs saying they will not feed any wildlife under possible penalty of being removed from WDW, possibly banned, and fined.

This is a marvelous idea. It would also be nice if this method was implemented at entrances to state & national parks. With today's level of public intellect, using posted signs & rules printed in literature is pretty much useless.

 

[jbolen2]

This popped up in my news feed on the local today. Not sure if had been talked about but I'm on page 72 so I'm a bit behind


In 1986, another child was attacked by an alligator at a Disney resort
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/06/in_1986_another_child_was_atta.html

 

[Dylan Ann]

Okay, I may have a degree in Criminal Justice, but maybe someone with a firmer grasp on litigation can answer this question. Wouldn't putting up signs now seem more like it was always Disney's fault (though I see NO fault here on ANYONE) all along? It seems to be the same as a store telling its staff to not say "Sorry" when someone falls or gets hurt inside the store. That is the same as admitting fault when you say that. Attorneys can use that in a civil case to show that the store was sorry that they had not done enough to prevent the accident.

(Please don't get all bent sideways on me everyone. I am asking a serious question because I just don;t know enough about it to answer it for myself.)

I've only taken one doctoral-level course on law, so I'm definitely no expert But my understanding is it has to do basically with being reasonable. If Disney had no reason to think that gators would attack anyone on the beach, then they likely won't be found negligent in a court case. However, now that there is has been an attack, they can no longer claim that there is no reason to suspect a gator can attack. If they don't put up any signs now, and someone else is attacked, the chances of them being found negligent would be far more likely (though there's a lot more that goes into it, and previous court cases would be used as precedent).
If they put up signs, and someone ignores the signs and is attacked, then Disney would not likely be found liable because they took reasonable precautions to warn guests of the dangers.

 

[G00fyDad]

That's great, BUT- if you truly stop and think- think of paying for your food at the zoo, maybe you had to let go of a hand to get your money out.
Think of when you were at the grocery store removing an item from the shelf.
Think about when you were selecting your 'grade' at the gas pump.

Not one person alive can say they have never ever taken their eyes off of their child. Not a single one.

Regardless, this is irrelevant in this situation. It is not even close to what happened.

I get your point. But no. I swear. You don't understand what I am saying because you and I have never met. My obsession with keeping an eye on my kids was a severe one. I had a friend lose a child before my wife had our daughter and it freaked me out. No, I did not go to the zoo or really anywhere without my wife. The few times I did, my child was in my arms or I had their hand. I understand that you don't get where I am coming from. I also know that I may be a "freak" about watching my kids, but I have reasons for it.

 

[G00fyDad]

I've only taken one doctoral-level course on law, so I'm definitely no expert But my understanding is it has to do basically with being reasonable. If Disney had no reason to think that gators would attack anyone on the beach, then they likely won't be found negligent in a court case. However, now that there is has been an attack, they can no longer claim that there is no reason to suspect a gator can attack. If they don't put up any signs now, and someone else is attacked, the chances of them being found negligent would be far more likely (though there's a lot more that goes into it, and previous court cases would be used as precedent).
If they put up signs, and someone ignores the signs and is attacked, then Disney would not likely be found liable because they took reasonable precautions to warn guests of the dangers.

Thank you for explaining that.

 

[Laura]

Let me be a little more clear, since I am not always that attentive with my posts when I am at work. Generally, attacks by wild animals not in captivity are governed by the common law rule of animals ferae naturae (i.e., wild-natured). This concept DOES PREVENT property owners from being held liable for animal attacks that occur on their land. HOWEVER, it DOES NOT protect property owners from liability if they were negligent in preventing injuries. There are four elements that must be proved: duty of care, breach of that duty, causation, and damages.



It is "uncontrolled" by Disney's design. It was left open by Disney's design. It was left "un-monitored" by Disney's design. This was not some isolated location on Disney property, this was a man-made beach in front of a resort hotel. Disney had an absolute duty of care. By not warning guests of potential hazards, they breached that duty. Their failure to exercise any supervision of the area, or to provide any barriers for known-dangerous animals or prevention of guests from entering a restricted area caused a guest to be attacked by a wild animal. And there were damages. This incident meets all four elements. You want to defend Disney all day long because you think they are innocent, and I'm telling you that you are wrong.



When someone enters your property, they have a reasonable expectation of not getting injured. Under "premises liability", the property owner is responsible for maintaining a safe environment. This absolutely applies to Disney.

Of course, liability is determined by the laws of the individual states, so there will be differences in the liability for each state . But they all adopt the "premises liability" premise. Nature or not, there can be liability.



I'm a Federal prosecutor, but nice try.



Wrong again. There is no such thing as "Forces of Nature" as a defense against liability. You are confusing that with "Acts of God", and that is very specifically defined in the law as acts outside human control (i.e., natural disasters). And while yes, you can argue that wild animals are outside human control, that's not entirely true. We can to an extent protect against wild animals. So that would not apply.



But I can demonstrate they don't. And I already have. This occurred at a Disney-sponsored event. Why were no CMs enforcing a policy that prohibits guests from entering the water. Were the signs visible to these particular guests? Since this was at night, were the signs illuminated? How close were the signs to the water. Knowing alligators commonly appear, what has Disney done to prevent them from entering the public spaces where people congregate. This isn't a public beach. It's a man-made beach on a man-made lake in total control of Disney. What if the boy in question hadn't actually been in the water? He still could have easily been snatched by the alligator. Disney absolutely has liability here, Whether you like it or not.

Yes this was a horrible accident, and yes the parents also have a duty of care. But we don't know what they knew about alligators on Disney property, or about not being allowed in the water. But Disney DID know, and they failed to communicate that information to their guests.



Wrong again. Swimming pools are almost always addressed separately for liability, because they can be pretty hazardous under normal conditions. You are correct as far as adults are concerned, in that liability for misconduct that can cause an injury will generally not be assigned to the pool owner. Usually a basic standard duty of care is all that is required, and the legal status pf the pool user also can come into play (i.e., is he trespassing). However, when it comes to children, pool owners have a heightened duty of care (regardless as to whether or not the child is trespassing). So in your example Disney would most likely be found liable to some extent as a matter of law.

Also, I want to point out that there is a concept in law also known as Strict liability. Under strict liability it wouldn't matter who caused the accident, the property owner will always be responsible. That's usually because strict liability is associated with inherently dangerous activities. In this case, depending on what Disney knows about the alligators on property and what they do as a matter of policy, they could be held to strict liability. In other words, does Disney allow the alligators to roam free in certain guest areas (such as the beach) without intervening and re-locating them? If so, they know they are playing with fire and that an attack is probable. That would mean they are engaging in a dangerous activity, which makes them liable, no matter what actually caused the attack. (Just to be clear, I am not stating that as fact, I am citing an example as to how Disney could be strictly liable).

Excellent summary of my last 2 semesters of Business Law lol.

 

[kelknight84]

As a lifelong Floridian I am well aware of the FL dangers but I also know other areas of the country have dangers as well. With that said I feel that this was a complete freak accident of nature and neither the parents or Disney has any blame. I've swam in many FL lakes and would still do it today, even SSL and Bay Lake. Even 10 years ago in 2006 when I worked as a boat captain on SSL we had to close traffic because the swimming portion of a triathlon was taking place off the MK "beach". 10 years ago was not that long ago to still allow swimming and like I said before I'd still swim in it today. However, night swimming is a whole different story. Also working at the World and on the lake I saw gators all the time in all different spots, and camping at the fort multiple times I also saw many within the canals. You just have to be aware of your surroundings. If I went up north I would be wary in the woods for wild animals, especially at night.

I want to leave one final thought because this has driven me crazy throughout the whole thread. Here is the definition of swim from the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Pay special attention to section 1B.

Full Definition of swim

1. a : to propel oneself in water by natural means (as movements of the limbs, fins, or tail)
   b : to play in the water (as at a beach or swimming pool)
2. to move with a motion like that of swimming : glide <a cloudswam slowly across the moon>
   
   
3. to float on a liquid : not sinkb : to surmount difficulties : not go under <sink or swim, live or die, survive or perish — Daniel Webster>
   
   
4. to become immersed in or flooded with or as if with a liquid<potatoes swimming in gravy>
   
   
5. to have a floating or reeling appearance or sensation
   

And finally again I find no fault with Disney or the parents. Just a freak accident of nature.

 

[Dylan Ann]

Thank you for explaining that.

There was actually a really good article on CNN yesterday that explained the legal issues involved - it really isn't very clear cut in this case, but this article did a good job of explaining the various legal issues involved here. I don't think I'm allowed to include a link here, but the title was "Are hotels liable for alligator attacks?"

I found it very interesting, and more informative than the many uninformed opinions given here (mine included)

 

[Lucky]

I've only taken one doctoral-level course on law, so I'm definitely no expert But my understanding is it has to do basically with being reasonable. If Disney had no reason to think that gators would attack anyone on the beach, then they likely won't be found negligent in a court case. However, now that there is has been an attack, they can no longer claim that there is no reason to suspect a gator can attack. If they don't put up any signs now, and someone else is attacked, the chances of them being found negligent would be far more likely (though there's a lot more that goes into it, and previous court cases would be used as precedent).
If they put up signs, and someone ignores the signs and is attacked, then Disney would not likely be found liable because they took reasonable precautions to warn guests of the dangers.

This wasn't the first attack at WDW, and the sorts of signs you're proposing are posted already in state parks and many other places where alligators are present. So by your reasoning they're already on shaky ground legally in this case, whatever they do going forward.

 

[sparky03]

1. Disney should change the signs to make note of the gator threat. It's really a simple, inexpensive thing they can do. If it scares people, so be it. Gators are in the water and they're not going away and "no swimming" doesn't tell the full story.

2. Management should give CMs more authority to crack down on guests feeding animals, even if this requires--gasp!--hiring an additional employee or two to monitor the shores around the property. I know, the sharp pencil men won't like the additional labor dollars and it might cut into some corporate suit's bonus. But compare that small increase in labor costs to the possible lawsuit, big settlement payout, higher insurance costs, bad press, and potential lost revenue due to said bad press, and I would think a small investment in CMs would save beaucoup $$$ in the long run.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming Disney for this (even though I know they'll probably settle this in some way). But I do think the above two actions could have done quite a bit toward lessening the likelihood of this tragic occurrence.

 

[wdwfan22]

It's now official Disney has announced they will post warning signs regarding Gators.

 

[Dylan Ann]

This wasn't the first attack at WDW, and the sorts of signs you're proposing are posted already in state parks and many other places where alligators are present. So by your reasoning they're already on shaky ground legally in this case, whatever they do going forward.

They may very well be on shaky legal ground - I really know nothing about what Disney knew/didn't know about gators at this location, and what is reasonable. I am not making any kind of claim on their liability, just explaining the law as I understand it. The CNN article I mentioned ("Are hotels liable for alligator attacks") would indicate that Disney would most likely NOT be found liable. However, if they don't make more of an effort to warn guests of the possibility of attacks going forward (in this case, it is reasonable for guests not to assume they are in danger when walking on an easily accessible beach with no gator signs), they would be more likely to found liable in a future attack. And if it can be proven that Disney knew there was a reasonable risk for attack, and did nothing to alert their guests to the fact, then it would also be more likely they would be found liable.

I don't think there is anyone on this thread qualified to say one way or another, because there are too many factors involved in a case like this.